It is well established that the ASX does not expect companies to disclose an NBIO, provided the approach remains confidential and incomplete (i.e. before definitive transaction documents are agreed). The ASX clarified this position in its 2013 updates to Guidance Note 8 on continuous disclosure.
GLN's approach was incomplete and had not leaked so they were not under any obligation to disclose it. As i understand it, the Secondary Trading Notice sets a higher bar for disclosure so it had to be released in there.
Although Freehills does say:
Approximately 20% of approaches were voluntarily disclosed by target boards. Was this an effective strategy? Drilling into the data, we see that, over the three years, an average of 26% of these voluntarily disclosures resulted in a rival bid and 26% resulted in a unilateral price increase. This indicates that, in a majority of cases, the decision to voluntarily disclose was helpful in creating value for shareholders.
What i would say, if i was a shareholder though, if 28.5c/sh equiv is not good enough to accept for the board then why are they issuing shares at 10.1c? Those two do not reconcile.
GLN Price at posting:
14.5¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)